How do you think, when lighting?

Started 3 months ago | Discussions
bicho Regular Member • Posts: 496
How do you think, when lighting?

I'm doing some deep introspective stuff here, reflecting how I think when I light in studio/on-location. I am about to do a video of this personal "internal" process. But that's just me - it would be super interesting to hear others' creative process as well?

Here is some stuff I regularly do:

I always start by "creating" the background for my subject in the camera first. The first step is setting my aperture to get the depth of field I want and then set the shutter speed to get the amount of ambient light I want for my background. Sometimes a total blackout if flashes are supposed to do all the job, and sometimes not. But this is always the first step.

The second step is to create my main light idea practically. This is still without any talent in front of the camera. It can be for the background/foreground/whatever. One characteristic lighting idea that will build the foundation for the rest - and preferably give a hint on what is going on outside the frame/building the story about the talent's environment.

The third step is to light the different "layers" in the image, starting from the layer in the furthest back to front. I bring in the talent when it's time for his/hers layer. Normally this is the last layer.

One thing I do a lot is thinking like I am using photoshop. Like, "what would I do to this image in Photoshop?". Darken some corner, brighten some part and so on - and then I do it with light. This makes the whole process like painting an empty canvas...

So, how do you think when lighting? Do you do like Leibowitz, and bring out the diffused octabox and let it do the job, or do you have a more creative process with the light it self? How do you control shadow levels? Do you use a lot of flags? Mirrors? It would be super inspiring to hear others thinking processes!

-- hide signature --

1DXmk2, Canon 5Dmk4, H5Dms, EVA1, Pro8, Pro10, A1, B1, D1...

For light lovers: www.lightbybicho.com

 bicho's gear list:bicho's gear list
Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS-1D X Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS 5D Mark IV +9 more
Darrell Spreen Forum Pro • Posts: 10,796
Re: How do you think, when lighting?
1

Well....I'm a bit reluctant to comment because I'm strictly an amateur though I've been experimenting with lighting for a number of years. I do have some opinions.

I like to try different things so I often begin thinking about creating effects with lights. As an example, I recently produced the effect of window light through shutters by single-slit diffraction using barndoors nearly closed in front of an LED source. It turned out to be quite effective.

Usually, however, my approach is more mundane. I will usually start with the fill light, looking for the "mood". I position it from high to low to see how it plays on the background. I consider both shoot-through or reflecting umbrellas, though I usually know which one I want.

I add my key light once I have a subject (or a stand-in) and look for shadows, dimensionality, and contrast ratios. With some subjects, I recognize I need to go with flat lighting. I will then add reflectors if I want some fill not provided by my fill light. I rarely use more than 2 lights unless I need a hair light.

I get the impression I follow a somewhat similar approach to yours (as opposed to starting with the main light), but I don't think or work in layers. And I don't think about photoshop at all. I treat image editing as another variable after the fact to crop, add vignetting, or perhaps introduce a soft filter, etc.

Thanks for the opportunity to re-visit the way I like to work with lighting. It's quite different from shopping for some new light or modifier.

-- hide signature --

DS

jlafferty Senior Member • Posts: 1,296
Re: How do you think, when lighting?
1

What a lovely thought prompt. I recall your thread on creating daylight in studio - probably one of the best threads here, ever. Let’s hope this reaches similar heights

Two things spring to mind for me:

I’m a far more intuitive lighter now. I lead with feelings and follow with technique. This has been an uphill battle but I feel I’m finally there, and emphasis on feel. A lot of it is considering what light suits the subject and feels parallel to intent and going from there.
The other thing I’d say is, similar to you, and borrowing a phrase from cinematography, I light spaces, then faces. I’ll often put paper up and adjust ISO, lighting, v flats, to get an even representation of the tone I want it to present. With that in place I’ll then fly the key light in and adjust to taste.

-- hide signature --

http://jimlafferty.com
General scoundrel. Evocative beats academic.

Klaus dk
Klaus dk Veteran Member • Posts: 7,093
Re: How do you think, when lighting?

When I light, it's usually for headshots for job applicants' resumes. This is a genre much like corporate portraits, except mine should be as individual as possible. I don't want it to be too evident that two applicants were shot by the same photographer in the same studio.

Each subject is assigned half an hour, so the whole session including lighting setup, connecting with the subject, and getting the shot(s) must be completed in that time frame. Since the task and situation is quite well defined, we rarely need more time and often use less.

I base the lighting of each shoot on a mixture of intuition, knowledge, and experience.

My thought process begins with the face.

I look at the individal and try to figure out how to light the face to bring out the subject's best. Depending on facial roundness, glasses, smoothness of skin, the setting of the eyes, hair, etc. I select a lighting sceme and guesstimate fill ratio, and the need for kickers and/or hair light. If the subject has a preferred side, and I notice or remember to ask, that's the one I light.

While I am ready to use all means available to make the lighting suit the face, I always try to keep the lighting from drawing attention to itself. I'm not there to show off my lighting skills, but to create a picture of a person.

To create a suitable background, I look at the subject's hair and skin colour as well as clothing. I use white, grey, and black backgrounds, but I often add coloured gels to my background light. I try to match or contrast the clothing or subtly add a mood to the picture.

Last, looking at the LCD, I balance the lights based on a few test shots. I know what I'm after, so I can usually fix the power of the different light groups in two or three shots. To me, that works better than some abstract readings on a flash meter.

Considering my studio lights are all TTL compatible, I might begin to use the TCM feature of my Godox Xpro transmitter. I'd like to know if anybody has experience with that?

 Klaus dk's gear list:Klaus dk's gear list
Sony RX100 II Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS R Canon EF 135mm F2.8 SF Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM +15 more
OP bicho Regular Member • Posts: 496
Re: How do you think, when lighting?
2

Darrell Spreen wrote:

Well....I'm a bit reluctant to comment because I'm strictly an amateur though I've been experimenting with lighting for a number of years. I do have some opinions.

As long as the basics of how to control light is there, the rest is a "life long journey" of constantly refining the process and expression. The way I work today, where I put my first focus on the background, is a result of years of focusing on the subject first. After studying thousands of my portraits, the ones that I like the most is where the subject and the background are in the best harmony. And since I mostly have more time to light the background before the subject arrives, I do all I can to eliminate randomness and be more in control when it's time for the subject. If I, let's say do I shortlight from the left on the subject, I make sure the background motivates this. Is it with a location visible in the background I want windows or other lightsources on the same side. If there is a practical/lamp in the background - I can do a rim light coloured the same way on the subject. This way it really looks like the subject is lit by the environment, and my lighting is totally hidden. As soon as the lighting is obvious, I think the photographers precense is communicating. Sometimes this is just fine, but sometimes it is not. Depending on the context/type of image of course.

I like to try different things so I often begin thinking about creating effects with lights. As an example, I recently produced the effect of window light through shutters by single-slit diffraction using barndoors nearly closed in front of an LED source. It turned out to be quite effective.

Would love to see an example! I do a lot of this too, and I use all kinds of methods to create "the effect of window light". Barndoors, flags, blackwrap, gaffa... Actually, this is a topic that can be studied a lot. One example is studying the painter Johannes Vermeer. He did a lot of "effect of window light" on his backgrounds, and when I work with assistants they all know what I mean when I want a "Vermeer corner". Or Caravaggios "The Calling of Saint Matthew" - a very common background light in my arsenal of "Creative Tools".

Usually, however, my approach is more mundane. I will usually start with the fill light, looking for the "mood". I position it from high to low to see how it plays on the background. I consider both shoot-through or reflecting umbrellas, though I usually know which one I want.

The classical way of setting the "lowest shadow level" is a method often used at film sets, and of course works fine for still photography as well. Defining the lowest level secures the exposure, and then you build upon that.

Me, on the other hand have taken a totally different approach. I actually work the other way around. I keep my shadows as DARK as POSSIBLE through the whole lighting process. I know this is NOT the common way, but my working process have developed into thinking that too dark shadows is great! The last thing I do, is to fill the shadows - and by doing this way I have total control of the contrast during the whole workflow. Too high contrast is easy to fix, but to low demands a lot of time consuming and hopelessly flagging bonanzas. By always keeping the shadows as dark as possible when setting each light, this is never a problem. As soon as one light fill shadows, fix it at once. My mantra is that one light should do one thing only. If a light creates an indirect lightsource, and I know I have more lights to set - I kill that indirect light source immediately - even if it might look good. I can always come back to this, if needed. Sorry - a lot of words there about fill :).

I add my key light once I have a subject (or a stand-in) and look for shadows, dimensionality, and contrast ratios. With some subjects, I recognize I need to go with flat lighting. I will then add reflectors if I want some fill not provided by my fill light. I rarely use more than 2 lights unless I need a hair light.

Now, this is totally depending on what type of picture I do - but I am very, very careful with fill on faces. The shadows must of course be at a nice level, but I mean how the fill look. If the fill looks like a fill, then it needs some adjustments. A reflector on the opposite side of the key can easily create it's own precense, and that will reveal the photographers intensions. If it's too close, the inverse square law will inevitably create a visible fall off. If it's to far away, it can be too small and create visible shadows. Skin reflections are another routhless revealer that there is a reflector on the opposite side.

I very often try to hide my fill by letting it come from the same side as the key light. This way, the fill gradually fills in the same direction as the key light, and this "wrapping" is way more subdued than the other way around. Yes, it's a bit more tricky to get the fill from the key-light-side, and sometimes it works just fine with a simple fill from the opposite side. But if you pay attention to how the fill really looks, it's quite interesting what an impact it has when switching side... Often to the better.

I get the impression I follow a somewhat similar approach to yours (as opposed to starting with the main light), but I don't think or work in layers. And I don't think about photoshop at all. I treat image editing as another variable after the fact to crop, add vignetting, or perhaps introduce a soft filter, etc.

Let me rephrase what I mean. Often when my lighting is "done" and I actually could start the shoot - I look at it and think "....and when I sit with this in photoshop - what will I do, and can I do it for real instead?". I slide temporarily into my Photoshop mind-set, because that is where I eventually will end up anyway. For example, vinjetting. Creating vinjetting "for real" never look photoshopped, but photoshopped vinjetting easily look "placed over" (especially when zooming out). I am a light-purist to it's extreme, and always try in absurdum to create everything in-camera.

Thanks for the opportunity to re-visit the way I like to work with lighting. It's quite different from shopping for some new light or modifier.

Discussing light through the tools, is like painting artists discussing art through their brushes...

-- hide signature --

www.lightbybicho.com

 bicho's gear list:bicho's gear list
Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS-1D X Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS 5D Mark IV +9 more
Darrell Spreen Forum Pro • Posts: 10,796
Much information to digest

It's clear that you look for and observe things that simply escape me when you plan your lighting.  I'd have to say that I develop a concept and then, using what I have on hand, rely on a bit of luck!  

I have looked at the sample images on your website and, not surprisingly, you are in a different league from me. There are some remarkable and beautiful samples and I will have to return to look again.  I have only done occasional portraits and lately, with our lockdown restrictions, I have tried still life/product photography to sustain my hobby interests.  The experiments can actually be fairly rewarding.

Placing the main light and fill light on the same side has become a favorite starting point for me on many occasions.  In that case I am often mixing the modifiers using a small softbox or a snoot or grid with the main light and a large umbrella for fill.  With a bit of "luck" the balance has given interesting results.

I'll be re-reading your remarks several times as well as the other replies to your thread. I hope we'll see more.

Thanks again.

-- hide signature --

DS

OP bicho Regular Member • Posts: 496
Re: How do you think, when lighting?
1

jlafferty wrote:

What a lovely thought prompt. I recall your thread on creating daylight in studio - probably one of the best threads here, ever. Let’s hope this reaches similar heights

I find it interesting that there is so little talk about the actual work in lighting in here. Feels like 99% is about how cheap Godox is, but there's still a ton of photographers out there who actually work (despite the noninteresting brand). Photography and lighting are craftmanship, and there are so many interesting aspects to discuss, learn, and be inspired by others... But here we are again! Trying to change focus again towards craftsmanship!

Two things spring to mind for me:

I’m a far more intuitive lighter now. I lead with feelings and follow with technique. This has been an uphill battle but I feel I’m finally there, and emphasis on feel. A lot of it is considering what light suits the subject and feels parallel to intent and going from there.

Apparently, Im not a native English speaker and love to learn phrases like "parallel to intent", because that the core of my workflow - but I explain it in 5 times longer scentences :). Thanks for that one.

What would you say, if possible, was the key that unlocked you to "finally be there"? If I understand you correctly, and draw a parallel to my own journey - when the theory on light became an instinct instead of theory, that's when I got unlocked. To use a overused phrase: I unleashed my creative wings.

In my case, it's a lot like painting (even though I suck at painting) - I see and feel, and act on that feeling of what is needed to be done within this 2 dimensional frame we call picture. With the risk of really sounding pathetic - sometimes (when Im really into it) I actually feel that I am "inside" the flat image-space, but can float back and forth in three dimensions. Actually four dimensions. In/out, left/right, up/down, and in time. The image it self is a 2 dimensional freezed left/right, up/down frame frozen in the third dimension - time. When creating an image, we float in two more dimensions (but just in one direction in time though). And there I lost it. Hah. Christopher Nolan - where are you when we need you to create a deep movie on photography?

The other thing I’d say is, similar to you, and borrowing a phrase from cinematography, I light spaces, then faces. I’ll often put paper up and adjust ISO, lighting, v flats, to get an even representation of the tone I want it to present. With that in place I’ll then fly the key light in and adjust to taste.

Never heard "light spaces, then faces" before! Thats a beautiful way to put it. I searched and found that Danny Gervitz (great Youtuber!) have said that some where. I also found another quote I loved: "create environments and just happen to place people in them". That's exactly the feeling I'm after.

-- hide signature --

www.lightbybicho.com

 bicho's gear list:bicho's gear list
Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS-1D X Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS 5D Mark IV +9 more
jlafferty Senior Member • Posts: 1,296
Re: How do you think, when lighting?
2

bicho wrote:

jlafferty wrote:

What a lovely thought prompt. I recall your thread on creating daylight in studio - probably one of the best threads here, ever. Let’s hope this reaches similar heights

I find it interesting that there is so little talk about the actual work in lighting in here. Feels like 99% is about how cheap Godox is, but there's still a ton of photographers out there who actually work (despite the noninteresting brand). Photography and lighting are craftmanship, and there are so many interesting aspects to discuss, learn, and be inspired by others... But here we are again! Trying to change focus again towards craftsmanship!

Yeah, I've thought about this quite a bit. There's obviously a lot to say about creative anxiety, about feeling vulnerable and inadequate, at the center of the lack of a meaningful creative conversation online. I've often thought that if you want to get better, you have to accept a prolonged sense of dissatisfaction. It's far easier to focus on tech, which is a finite practice, for which there are limited right answers... and it's also easy to hone three lighting setups and just repeat that - if you're not easily bored, you're quickly gratified and can sit on that plateau indefinitely.

The tech discussion also pays well, or at least, on the internet it's what's easily packaged and transmitted and takes off quickly as a result, easier to monetize. It's a bit harder to discuss something so amorphous and subjective and have it take off. It's not really soundbiteable, memeable or whatever.

Two things spring to mind for me:

I’m a far more intuitive lighter now. I lead with feelings and follow with technique. This has been an uphill battle but I feel I’m finally there, and emphasis on feel. A lot of it is considering what light suits the subject and feels parallel to intent and going from there.

Apparently, Im not a native English speaker and love to learn phrases like "parallel to intent", because that the core of my workflow - but I explain it in 5 times longer scentences :). Thanks for that one.

What would you say, if possible, was the key that unlocked you to "finally be there"? If I understand you correctly, and draw a parallel to my own journey - when the theory on light became an instinct instead of theory, that's when I got unlocked. To use a overused phrase: I unleashed my creative wings.

Oh man, I'm like the WOPR in War Games. Or an AI. Just repeat a thing, pick it apart for its flaws. Go out and try again. Fail at some level, keep trying. Make hundreds of plays in every possible permutation until as you say... you pass this threshold where it becomes intuitive. And, for me anyway, I know what not to do, or what doesn't work.

I call it "transparency", as in, can I see through the tools and the process? Once you get so proficient the tools fall back to a secondary concern, or pretty much disappear, that's when it gets interesting. Long journey for me, and I've often been my own worst enemy in this regard. It took me a while to get more patient and kind with myself for my failings. Or embrace them because I'd see others respond to the images from an emotional place, so seeing my work reacted to by others was its own kind of learning - it took a while for me to embrace that it's not always the most difficult, or most overtly stylised lighting that others respond to.

At the same time, I've worked as a digitech in NYC and have had the benefit of watching some sought after photographers at the top of their game, shooting campaigns for big clients. A lot of that gave me permission to care a bit less about the technical, to be kinder to myself, to keep it simpler, always. The permission thing has been huge. I've seen some very creative, skilled photographers tackle massive campaigns for pharma and fashion... with just a body and 50mm; or a body, handful of lenses and a reflector.

So now my starting position is what do we need these photos to feel like? Should they feel sincere, or elevated and artificial? Spontaneous or very formal? Pop, bright, or subdued, and subtly crafted?

And then from there flows the lighting tech stuff. It's really fun to listen to other people on set now and hear what they're saying, and know exactly what gear will get us there. I just worked with a fantastic makeup artist and I was testing out short lighting, really moody, shapely, Rembrandt... and he said "These are beautiful photos. They work as photos. But I feel like my work is getting lost." I said "Cool, say no more." Switch from short lighting the model with a softlighter, to over camera with a flooded fresnel. It took three frames to get the new light locked in and the MUA drew a big breath "Holy shiiiiii that's what I needed!"

Another a-hah moment for me was understanding that a light's character - soft vs. hard - can operate independently of contrast, by moving it near or father away. So you can have something like a softlighter, which inherently preserves mid-tone detail and gives a soft shadow edge, also act as a more contrasty source by bringing it in.

In my case, it's a lot like painting (even though I suck at painting) - I see and feel, and act on that feeling of what is needed to be done within this 2 dimensional frame we call picture. With the risk of really sounding pathetic - sometimes (when Im really into it) I actually feel that I am "inside" the flat image-space, but can float back and forth in three dimensions. Actually four dimensions. In/out, left/right, up/down, and in time. The image it self is a 2 dimensional freezed left/right, up/down frame frozen in the third dimension - time. When creating an image, we float in two more dimensions (but just in one direction in time though). And there I lost it. Hah. Christopher Nolan - where are you when we need you to create a deep movie on photography?

Haha! I trust you at your word here. I'm not quite there yet, passing through the multiverse

The other thing I’d say is, similar to you, and borrowing a phrase from cinematography, I light spaces, then faces. I’ll often put paper up and adjust ISO, lighting, v flats, to get an even representation of the tone I want it to present. With that in place I’ll then fly the key light in and adjust to taste.

Never heard "light spaces, then faces" before! Thats a beautiful way to put it. I searched and found that Danny Gervitz (great Youtuber!) have said that some where. I also found another quote I loved: "create environments and just happen to place people in them". That's exactly the feeling I'm after.

Yeah, Danny is where I heard that phrase. Maybe he came up with it but my hunch is that it's a cinematography staple. Yours is a nice phrase too.

-- hide signature --

http://jimlafferty.com
General scoundrel. Evocative beats academic.

Joe Wisenheimer
Joe Wisenheimer New Member • Posts: 17
Re: How do you think, when lighting?

Intensity, Color, Direction and Quality.   Inverse Square Law and Ratios.  That's it.

You just have to look and decide if that's what you want.

Knowing what you want is a different decision.

jlafferty Senior Member • Posts: 1,296
Re: How do you think, when lighting?

Joe Wisenheimer wrote:

Knowing what you want is a different decision.

That's the lifetime journey.

-- hide signature --

http://jimlafferty.com
General scoundrel. Evocative beats academic.

CraigVMN Contributing Member • Posts: 762
Re: How do you think, when lighting?

I bought a whole bunch of lighting gear just before COVID hit, so I haven't had many chances to use it. I have been watching a lot of videos on different setup ideas, and when I have a chance, I'll break out the gear and try and replicate what I learned. I also like to experiment.

My intent now is to use one of my family members as a subject, and try out a bunch of different setups & technics, view the results & use what methods work best in the future.

 CraigVMN's gear list:CraigVMN's gear list
Nikon D5600 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-80mm F2.8-4E ED VR Nikon AF-P 70-300mm F4.5-6.3G VR Nikon 10-20mm F4.5-5.6 VR
Rodger in Edmonton
Rodger in Edmonton Senior Member • Posts: 3,077
Re: How do you think, when lighting?
1

bicho wrote:

So, how do you think when lighting?

a desired look is created by understanding the behavior of light when it interacts with a given shape and material. Since light is both particle and wave, it has peculiar properties for example: a strong point source acts as a hard light at distance but a diffused source in proximity. All materials reflect light differently , an understanding of the family of angles of contact and reflection are needed. etc. What is a polarizer? why doe sit work in situation X but not Y?

Diffusers, reflectors, gobos, backgrounds, bounce cards, flashes, LED lights, desk lamps, umbrellas, other diffusers, diffuser materials etc stands etc etc. All in the kit

Buy Once - Cry Once- conquer any subject.

Canada .25 coin will look like a pizza pan with aligning the camera with the proper family of angles.

-- hide signature --

Best Regards, Rodger
Save Lives - Be an Organ or Stem Cell Donor.
Quaecumque vera

Serjojeee Senior Member • Posts: 1,350
Re: How do you think, when lighting?

I will not dismiss one octabox as "less creative" sort of lighting. I remember once I've spent 15 minutes getting the exact position of this thing to get me to the point of some magical light. When it's big and close to the subject interesting things happen.

Other than that after a summer of outside strobing I think that I do everything that you've said in my imagination. So I start with an angle and than put a model and some light in that world. The recent idea is "use less light, but use proper light, cto/ctb gel etc.". From trying to overpower the sun I moved to different ideas of blending the artificial and an available light.

ashleymorrison
ashleymorrison Contributing Member • Posts: 801
Re: How do you think, when lighting?

bicho wrote:

So, how do you think when lighting?

A lot would depend on what the client said they wanted beforehand - as well as how much they were willing to pay and/or what type of look I felt they would be willing to paid me the most for, after talking to them about their usage requirements, etc.

Also, a lot would depend on one's starting point.

For example: Before & After ...

.. which I wrote about shooting here: A dream come true ... as I know there are more than 100 different ways to shoot any subject.

-- hide signature --
OP bicho Regular Member • Posts: 496
Re: How do you think, when lighting?
2

Makes my heart warm when I see all that hard work. Pure photographic craftmanship. 

-- hide signature --

www.lightbybicho.com
^^^ A community for light lovers. Education for newbies, inspiration for the old dogs!

 bicho's gear list:bicho's gear list
Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS-1D X Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS 5D Mark IV +9 more
ashleymorrison
ashleymorrison Contributing Member • Posts: 801
Re: How do you think, when lighting?

bicho wrote:

Makes my heart warm when I see all that hard work. Pure photographic craftmanship.

Thanks - but the point I was trying to make, is "how I think about lighting" is often determined by the amount of money that I have to play with, just like everything else.

If I have little or no money to play with, then I don’t tend to spend very much time thinking about it.

So point & shoot…

.. and then on to the next one, is how I’d think.

Whereas, if the client was willing pay a lot and didn’t mind how long it took, then I’d not only hire a team of people to help me think about what all we were going to do but I’d also let them do most of the work as well...

.. while I'd sit around...

.. and watched from behind the camera 

In other words, if I have £10,000 to play with, I would tend to think very differently to if I only had £10 to play with or £100 to play with or even £1000 to play with - and so that’s also something that you may want to keep in mind here… on top of everything else.

-- hide signature --
OP bicho Regular Member • Posts: 496
Re: How do you think, when lighting?
2

I think this is very important. The fact that you, as a hired photographer, are always within a framework set by the client - and therefore think differently depending on the limitations.

I have done my share as a speaker at many photographic schools and always was a bit struck that the students don't get familiar with tackling different levels of Time, Money, and Quality-frameworks. In the real world, they always will navigate that classical triad and should be thought how to comfortably solve photographic challenges despite where in this triad the project are.

If I can be quite frank, I find that many students today actually are quite uninterested in the quality-corner. This means that if they get a job where quality is important, they don't know what that implies. If I can be even franker, my collected condensate on how young photographers think today is that "Quality equals Fake". They are grown up with, and so used to "high quality" that they despise it, and find Lighting and "Bigger projects" to breathe manipulation and fake. BUT the funny thing is that when they learn lighting for real - how the nature of light works so they can mimic what mother nature does (as they, of course, love), they get fascinated. What they actually despite is bad quality. Good craftmanship is invisible and does not make the viewer feel manipulated.

Sorry. Many words out of topic there.

Back to your point. I totally agree. The thinking process is totally different depending on what you are doing - and this is totally depending on what limitations you have. And this falls back to your experience - how many different "levels" you have up your sleeve. And each and one of these situations demand their own way of thinking. Maybe the question should be rephrased into a defined situation, and then - how would you think? I don't know. But I know that I always think.

-- hide signature --

www.lightbybicho.com
^^^ A community for light lovers. Education for newbies, inspiration for the old dogs!

 bicho's gear list:bicho's gear list
Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS-1D X Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS 5D Mark IV +9 more
ashleymorrison
ashleymorrison Contributing Member • Posts: 801
Re: How do you think, when lighting?

#dbicho wrote:

I think this is very important. The fact that you, as a hired photographer, are always within a framework set by the client - and therefore think differently depending on the limitations.

Yes - but even when I agree to hire myself...

.. and then try to produce the type of images that I believe others would want to use...

.. I'd first take into account how much I had to spend or was likely to make over the next few years.

.. I find that many students today actually are quite uninterested in the quality-corner. This means that if they get a job where quality is important, they don't know what that implies.

What’s the difference between good, very good and just good enough?

Because that is also the sort of thing that I would think about when it comes to lighting or writing with light to tell the story...

.. since a photographer[the Greek φῶς (phos), meaning "light", and γραφή (graphê), meaning "drawing, writing", together meaning "drawing with light"] is a person who makes photographs

-- hide signature --
jlafferty Senior Member • Posts: 1,296
Re: How do you think, when lighting?
1

For a laugh, this is how I often prelight. I'm usually on set ahead of everyone else, setting up, getting in the right mental space. When the subject shows up, I want to be 80-90% there with my lighting. You're never fully 100% until they step on set, and I'm often trying entirely new setups, or slightly tweaked setups already familiar. But I want to hit the ground running, creatively, and make it so that I minimize or eliminate any lag between starting and feeling good about where things are headed.

So I put an apple box at approximately where they'll be, and I have three of varying colors that correspond to different skin tones, more or less. I can tether, get the lighting roughed in, get some number from the exposure overlays, see where the shadows are placed, how dense they are, how broad and even my background coverage is, if the DOF falls off fast enough, etc.

-- hide signature --

http://jimlafferty.com
General scoundrel. Evocative beats academic.

Joe Wisenheimer
Joe Wisenheimer New Member • Posts: 17
Re: How do you think, when lighting?
1

Roughing in lighting before the client arrives benefits you and them. Useful and practical.  Yep, I do a similar version with a roughly 18% gray foam head and a Lastolite EZ Balance.  Plus you find out what isn't working that day before the audience shows up.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads